Re: Pitman's Miller Time


"Seanpit" <seanpitnospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1183003080.176756.183510@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| On Jun 27, 3:21 pm, "Lizzardwoman" <lizzardwomanRM...@xxxxxxxxx>
| wrote:
|
| < snip >
|
| > I ask what the evidence says.
|
| So do I . . .

Do you believe folks are entitled to their own facts? Or are facts facts?

Why do YECs (religiously-motivated folks) always happen to have a diferent
set of "facts" compared to scientists who study these things?

How do you explain that coincidence if religion has nothing to do with it?

| > You ask how to knock down evidence that doesn't fit your theology. That
is
| > dishonest.
|
| You think you are not religious in your thinking? Don't kid
| yourself. You're as biased in your thinking as any hardened sectarian
| fundamentalist.

I guess you have to assuage your guilt to tell yourself things like that.

If you could show me good evidence for Darwinian-
| style evolution, I'd accept it in readily. I have no overwhelming
| religious need to avoid evolutionism. In fact, if it actually worked,
| I think it would be fabulous - very cool indeed. The problem I have
| with Darwinism is that it just doesn't work beyond very low levels of
| functional complexity. That's it.

Let's say the present theory comes up hopelessly short in explaining the
facts. We can still rule out young-earth creationism based on those same
facts. Why don't you address the fact that a supernatural special creation
of life in the last few thousand years doesn't jump to the head of the line
of theories even if you can shoot down evolution (which, by the way, and
along with a few billion year old earth, is also a fact).

So even if I grant you (for the sake of argument only) that the present
theory of evolution doesn't capture the data (which it does), you are still
left with the FACTS of an old earth and life changing over most of a few
billion years.

How do you capture that data in your theory?

And if you claim an old earth and changing life aren't facts, can't you
trace that directly to your religious beliefs? And isn't that dishonest?

| > My mind can be changed with evidence. Your mind will not allow any
evidence
| > that counters your preconceived notion that your religious views *must*
be
| > correct. Yes or no?
|
| No. None of my views must be correct at all. They could all be
| wrong.

Pardon me but I don't believe you believe that if your are a religionist
worth his salt. This isn't meant as just rhetorical expercise... you have
to be honest in your discourse.

The proof that you don't believe this is your rejection of scientific facts
that run counter to your religious views.

If you would just research chalk formations (in all their biogeochemical
complexity - focus on fluxes of specific elements, doubling times of
relevant organisms, etc. and not the cursory stuff you previously wrote in
reply) or the Green River Fm, you would have to discard YECism without
resort to radchem techniques which I guess you distrust per se because they
yield results counter to Bronze Age thinking.

That's the nature of human understanding of truth. I'd rather
| know the truth than go along with a nice fable.

No you appear, like many religionists, to be emotionally incapable of
discarding the counterfactual claims given to you by those who inculcated
you in your religion. This cripples your ability to approach scientific
facts in an intellectually honest manner. Proof of this is your web site.

The fact of the
| matter is that I really don't see that evolutionism makes any rational
| sense.

And you would be saying the same thing about the scientific explanation of
thunder if you lived in a different time.

I do in fact think that the majority of scientists have been
| duped and that I have it right. Is that arrogant of me? In a way it
| is I guess. But, that's the way it is for me. The more I study the
| Theory of Evolution, the less it makes sense to me. I used to think
| it made a lot of sense about 15 years ago. It doesn't make nearly as
| much sense now that I've learned more about it. Sorry.

But what about the two Christians on my doctoral committee who use radchem
in their work and know the earth and fossils are billions of years old. Are
you a better Christian than they? Why are they wrong about this and you, a
medical doctor who dabbles in stratigraphy, paleontology, evolutionary
biology, etc. correct? How likely is it that you are correct and thousands
of biologists and geologists, many of whom are Christians, wrong?

Why does that give you pause?

| > That's the difference between you and me. I care about intellectual
honest.
|
| I'm sure you do. I'm sure you are very honest and sincere in your
| beliefs. As it is though you don't know very much about me at all it
| seems . . .

Here's what I know... you are a person who is religiously motivated to
question any scientific facts and theories that run counter to your
religious notions. I have no doubt that you would not be saying any of what
you have been absent some religious training that you WILL NOT QUESTION as
to it's truth claims.

Hitchens is correct... religion poisons everything it seems.

| By the way, what is your educational background? What do you do for a
| living?

That's really not relevant to this discussion but I'm a research scientist
(biogeochemist) with the Gov't., presently on hiatus, as I follow my husband
around the world. I hold a PhD in geosciences, again not relevant to this
discussion.

sharon

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: [OT] Evolution (was: Re: Evolution for newsgroups)
    ... Evolution is a _theory_, and a flimsy one. ... Religion is a _THEORY_ based on no facts what so ever. ... At least science has evidence and facts. ...
    (comp.os.linux.setup)
  • Re: Everything is a religion (was Re: New Riding Buddy (heheh))
    ... you ascribe more moral importance to YOUR "religion" and don't ... Science is a way of understanding and cataloging facts. ... evolution: evolution is a fact. ...
    (alt.mountain-bike)
  • Re: science and magic
    ... Ditto with astronomy (weird stuff like "alternate universes ... I am not questioning the evidence for evolution at all. ... Science deals with cold facts, ...
    (soc.atheism)
  • Re: templeton foundation cans research grants for ID
    ... > explaining that the Cambrian Explosion contradicts evolution? ... >> Another you didn't respond to concerned your silly claim of not ... >> the Templeton's up on their alleged offer consituted evidence that ... the facts go in this thread, you are not one to talk. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why does it take like 6 hours to install XP VPC?
    ... "MuahMan" wrote: ... >>>>> facts. ... I will glady say that Evolution Theory. ... Brian, I know you are too stupid to actually look at the evidence, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)